(yu_photo / Shutterstock.com)

 
Sun Tzu once said, “If our forces are five to the enemy’s one, attack him.”

This five to one force that marks the line of attack is about to be crossed by China with Japan.

This difference was only two to one by the end of the Democratic Party of Japan’s administration. It is none other than the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) that increased this difference to five to one in its nine years of administration.

LDP is sometimes described to as “being focused on national security,” but this statement cannot be more wrong. When defining national defense as the act of dealing with external threats, then it is reasonable to criticize that the party has failed to take any proactive action, causing the nation’s defenses to tread through dangerous waters.

This is clear by the fact that the Japanese government upheld its internal policy of keeping its defense budget within one percent of Japan’s GDP, despite the fact that its neighboring Xi Jinping administration tremendously expanded its military power which alerted all of the world.

At this point, there were talks of raising the budget to “2 percent.” However, there are almost no true conservatives who believe that Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, with its national security viewpoints as futile as the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan’s, will actually consider this change. As we will explain in detail later, this will never happen with the pro-China LDP.

We are not just talking about the defense budget. As we take a more objective look, it becomes more and more clear that the LDP did not take any action the past nine years.

National Security Laws And Constitutional Amendment Drafts Made Powerless

The biggest accomplishment that the LDP has made in terms of national security is most likely their Security Legislation in 2014 that gives them the right to collective self-defense. There are voices that praised the administration for its “courageous decision” in the midst of large-scale protests around the National Diet. However, this was in reality a result of compromise upon compromise that made the legislation powerless.

Originally, this legislation was intended so that Japan would protect the U.S. if it were attacked, since the U.S. is going to protect Japan if it were attacked. It adheres to the international law, and above all aims to do something morally right and obvious.

However, they faced aggressive responses from protestors, opposing parties, the media and pro-Constitution experts when the legislation was being discussed, which scared the Abe administration and led them to come up with the three requirements for military response instead. They retreated into the creation of a legislation that seems intact but is useless for any practical purposes.

In short, it basically states: “If Japan helping you does not directly lead to the continued existence of our nation, then we will not help,” “Even when we do, we will mostly give logistics support from a safe distance, and it is unlikely that any situation will arise when our Self-Defense Force (SDF) will actually protect the U.S. military.” The situation remains “unfair” for the U.S.

What is even more of an issue is that this legislation is almost utterly useless with regard to the situation with Taiwan, which may ultimately determine the fate of Japan. It has remained true that unless Japan takes some extra-legal measures, its existence cannot be guaranteed.

This is highlighted by the claim from the ruling coalition party, KOMEITO, which states that “the LDP speaks of the right of collective self-defense, but in reality, it continues to maintain the individual self-defense right.” It is as if they proudly announced their success in making the legislation powerless.

Nevertheless, even this defect legislation may be considered as a “small step” if it were taken as an urgent, temporary means to change Article 9 of the Constitution later. However, this is not the case: the Abe administration has made the attempt for any constitutional amendment watered-down as well.

Infinitesimal Improvement From the Democratic Party of Japan

The attempt to change Article 9 of the Constitution was originally an attempt to change the dangerous situation that Japan was left in: that they can only fight back once they have been attacked by an opponent due to the article’s renunciation of war (first clause) and the non-retention of military power (second clause).

However, Shinzo Abe (then Prime Minister) who had advocated for the amendment of the constitution for years suddenly came up with a strange addition to the constitution. He proposed leaving the first and second clause as is and adding a third clause that will clearly indicate the existence of the Self-Defense Force (SDF). He reasoned that the SDF may be seen as unconstitutional given the current circumstance, but nothing would be changed about the fundamental issue that the SDF will not be able to take action in times of gravity.

What happened? Soichiro Tahara, a journalist, speaks of an interesting theory: when the ruling party achieved two-thirds in both houses of the parliament in 2016, Mr. Tahara said to prime Minister Abe, “Now you can finally amend the constitution.” However, Mr. Abe responded, “I cannot say this in a loud voice, but there is no reason to amend the constitution anymore.” When asked why, he replied that the “bothersome” U.S. stopped pestering them after they admitted the right to collective self-defense.

If that were his true thoughts, then Mr. Abe too has sold his soul to the Shigeru Yishida-like, mistaken belief that Japan does not need to fight, as long as the U.S. happily serves as their guard dog.

If he has submitted to the liberals’ attack and given up their ideals of changing the post-war regime for the prolonging of his administration, then this would incite holy anger, both from the higher spirits in Heaven and the right-minded conservatives on Earth.

Maybe Mr. Abe still wanted the title as “the first Prime Minister to amend the Constitution post-war,” even after he became disinclined to solve the essential issue with the Constitution. It was around this time when the KOMEITO brought Prime Minister Abe this addition to the constitution that is safe and easy to pass.

In the end, LDP did not change anything about the fundamental defense issue facing Japan.

Occasional calls for the integration of new weapons and the creation of new units will not serve its true purpose without this fundamental change, and it is sad that this seems like an alibi-creation in scope of the tiny defense budget that they currently have. In the end, this is the administration that was unable to introduce a single Aegis Ashore to begin with.

“Pro-national security LDP” is a complete illusion. In the past nine years, Japan’s defense system had improved infinitesimally from the times of the Democratic Party of Japan.

War-Renouncing ‘Japan Innovation Party’
Deadweight ‘KOMEITO’
Pro-Defense ‘Happiness Realization Party’

Furthermore, a seemingly conservative, pro-constitutional-amendment Japan Innovation Party has advocated for the firm preservation of the “renunciation of war” for Article 9, is basically no different from the undependable LDP.

Meanwhile, the Happiness Realization Party had, from its first establishment in 2009, continuously advocated for the complete overhaul of Article 9 which would include the clear outlining of the right to self-defense and establishment of a National Defense Force. The Happiness Realization Party is the only party that has the will to truly protect Japan.

(gary718 / Shutterstock.com)